Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Moses v S (CA & R 42/22) [2023] ZANCHC 55 (8 September 2023)
The High Court set aside a rape conviction because the trial court wrongly barred cross-examination on the complainant’s prior police statement.
Manga v S (CA&R 240/2019) [2023] ZAECMKHC 6 (25 January 2023)
The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence after finding the reconstructed trial record was wholly inadequate and procedurally defective.
Mofokeng v S (A99/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 321 (17 November 2022)
The High Court upheld an appeal where the trial record was missing and could not be reconstructed, set aside the conviction and sentence, and referred the matter for possible retrial.
Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Mathebula and Another (A110/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 514 (28 August 2020)
The High Court upheld an appeal against an acquittal after a regional magistrate closed the State’s case under section 342A without proper inquiry or notice.
Mokoena v S (200/2018) [2019] ZASCA 74; 2019 (2) SACR 355 (SCA) (30 May 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the magistrate's decision to close the defence case under section 342A(3)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act was procedurally irregular because the required notice under section 342A(4)(a) had not been given by the State. This defect was material, as it resulted in the exclusion of evidence and a failure of justice, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The high court erred in remitting the matter to the same magistrate, who had already made adverse credibility findings against the appellant, which would compromise the fairness of any further proceedings. Acco…
Source excerpt
Talane v S (CAP 22/2014) [2015] ZANWHC 8 (12 March 2015)
The court held that section 162(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is peremptory and requires the presiding judicial officer to administer the oath to witnesses. In this case, the interpreter administered the oath, which is not permitted. As a result, the evidence given by all witnesses was inadmissible and lacked the status of evidence. This irregularity vitiated the entire proceedings, leaving no admissible evidence before the court. Consequently, the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the appeal succeeds.
Source excerpt
S v Govender (DR 242/2014) [2014] ZAKZPHC 54; 2016 (1) SACR 236 (KZP) (4 November 2014)
The court found that the sentence of correctional supervision including house arrest imposed on the accused following a guilty plea under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act was not competent, as house arrest is a form of detention without the option of a fine. The court distinguished the present case from S v Cedars, noting that the accused had no previous convictions, substance abuse issues, or requests for rehabilitation. The sentence was not appropriate given the circumstances, and the technical irregularity could not be overlooked in the interests of justice. The conviction w…
Source excerpt
S v Chokoe (A212/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 515; 2014 (2) SACR 612 (GP) (28 March 2014)
The High Court held that the destruction of the court record in a part-heard criminal matter constitutes a technical irregularity, but does not automatically render the proceedings a nullity. The magistrate must first attempt to reconstruct the record by involving all parties, ensuring the accused's right to participate and challenge the reconstructed evidence. Only if the reconstruction fails or substantial disagreement arises regarding its accuracy may the matter be tried de novo. The trial court retains jurisdiction and is not functus officio in part-heard matters. The interests of justice…
Source excerpt
S v Thobejane (CC169/07) [2009] ZAGPHC 2 (16 January 2009)
The High Court set aside a rape conviction after finding the missing trial record could not be reconstructed and a just hearing was impossible.
Sydow en Andere v S (A66/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 66; [2003] 1 All SA 118 (C); 2003 (2) SACR 302 (C) (22 November 2002)
The court found that the complainant's evidence was inadmissible because it was given through an interpreter who was not sworn in as required by the rules governing interpretation in criminal proceedings. Although the interpreter was a registered sworn translator, her general oath as a translator did not suffice for her role as an ad hoc interpreter in the specific criminal trial. The irregularity was technical in nature and resulted from the magistrate's error, not from any fault of the parties. In terms of section 322(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appropriate remedy is to set aside…
Source excerpt
Explore more
